Nature-based Solutions Self-Assessment Tool

"*" indicates required fields

Step 1 of 9

Name

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

1. NbS effectively address societal challenges

1.1 | The societal challenges addressed are clearly identified, understood, and documented

▼ read more

NbS must address clearly specified challenges that have significant and demonstrable impacts on society, economy, ecosystems and biodiversity. To optimise the NbS and ensure future accountability, it is important to establish a clear and documented rationale of the societal challenges and their drivers and ensure this is well communicated and understood by affected stakeholders and right holders. Societal challenges should be assessed at the relevant levels (local, subnational, national, and international) as interactions across levels are critical for achieving the NbS outcomes levels as interactions across these four levels are critical for achieving the NbS outcomes (Criterion 2).

Are the societal challenges and their drivers identified and understood at different levels?*

Yes. The most pressing societal challenges and their drivers are identified, well understood at all levels.

The most pressing societal challenges and their drivers are identified and broadly understood within the relevant context.

The most pressing societal challenges and their drivers are partially identified.

No. The societal challenges are characterised by a limited understanding and addressed only at a surface level.

Are the societal challenges documented and accessible to affected stakeholders and rights-holders?*

Yes. They are documented and accessible to affected stakeholders and rights-holders.

Despite remaining knowledge gaps, they are documented and accessible to affected stakeholders and rights-holders.

Multiple knowledge and documentation gaps persist.

Limited or no documentation of their drivers.

1.2 | The most pressing societal challenges for stakeholders and rights-holders are prioritised

▼ read more

Prioritisation of the most pressing societal challenges to be addressed by the NbS is best informed by a transparent, inclusive and participatory process (Criterion 5), through which stakeholders and rights-holders share their knowledge and concerns and contribute to an equitable and just prioritising of the challenges.

Are the most pressing societal challenges prioritised?*

Yes. The most pressing societal challenges are prioritized

The most pressing societal challenges are identified

General societal challenges are identified

No. No clear societal challenges are identified

Are stakeholders and rights holders identified and consulted in this prioritisation?*

It is based on full consultation with affected stakeholders and rights holders.

It is based on some consultation with affected stakeholders and rights holders.

It is based on limited input from some affected stakeholders and rights-holders.

No consultation with any affected stakeholders and rights holders.

1.3 | NbS outcomes for people and nature are identified, benchmarked and periodically assessed

▼ read more

Actions to protect, conserve, restore, sustainably use or manage natural or modified terrestrial, freshwater, coastal and marine ecosystems must deliver tangible and substantive benefits to human well-being, biodiversity and ecosystem integrity (Criterion 3). Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound (SMART) outcomes should be established and used to address the prioritized societal challenges (Indicator 1.2). Specific indicators/Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) are associated to these outcomes (benchmark) and regularly assessed to monitor impact (for accountability) and to inform adaptive management (Criterion 7).

Are SMART NbS outcomes identified, addressing the prioritized societal challenges?*

Comprehensive SMART outcomes relevant to the prioritized societal challenges are in place.

Some specific NbS outcomes, relevant to the prioritized societal challenges, are in place.

General NbS outcomes are in place.

SMART outcomes are not identified or are vague and ill-defined.

Are these outcomes based on actions that rely on ecosystem functions and services?*

The NbS outcomes fully focus on benefits or co-benefits from ecosystem-based actions.

There is enough relation between NbS outcomes and benefits or co-benefits from ecosystem-based actions.

The NbS outcomes partly relate to benefits or co-benefits from ecosystem-based actions.

SMART outcomes are not identified or are vague and ill-defined.

This field is hidden when viewing the form

1 - Sum

2. NbS incorporate an ecological, economic, social and cultural systems perspective

2.1 | NbS recognise and respond to interactions between the economy, society, ecosystems and cultural norms

▼ read more

The success of an NbS intervention is determined not only by the quality of the technical intervention but, critically, how well the interconnections and interactions between the people, their shared values and cultural norms, the economy and the ecosystems are understood and responded to. For NbS to be durable and sustainable, a “systems-perspective” framing is required to ensure these interconnections and interactions are identified, acknowledged, built into the NbS decision-making process (Criterion 5) and their evolution monitored over time to ensure the NbS adapt to changing context (Criterion 7).

Are the interconnections and interactions between the economy, society and ecosystems, identified?*

Yes. The NbS considers in detail the interconnections and interactions between the economy, society and ecosystems.

The NbS recognises specific interconnections and interactions between the economy, society and ecosystems.

The NbS recognises and responds to some of the interconnections and interactions between the economy, society and ecosystems although knowledge gaps remain.

The NbS does not recognise nor respond to the interconnections and interactions between the economy, society and ecosystems.

Is the change in these interconnections and interactions considered over time?*

These interconnections and interactions are accounted for in the decision-making process throughout the intervention time scale.

These are accounted for in the NbS decision-making processes, at least once during the intervention period.

These are partially or not at all accounted for in decision-making processes.

The NbS does not recognise nor respond to the interconnections and interactions between the economy, society and ecosystems.

2.2 | NbS seek synergies across sectors and with complementary interventions

▼ read more

To enhance/strengthen the effectiveness/efficiency in pursuing their outcomes, it is important for NbS to seek synergies with and complement other types of interventions (such as engineering, information technology, financial instruments, insurance, cultural practices, etc.) and work across different sectors according to the specifics and context of each situation. It is important to identify complementary interventions and relevant sectors through participatory process (Criterion 5).

Are relevant complementary interventions identified and integrated in the NbS intervention to enhance effectiveness?*

All relevant complementary interventions are integrated within the NbS.

The most relevant complementary interventions are integrated within the NbS.

Only some complementary interventions are integrated into the NbS.entary interventions are integrated within the NbS.

If any complementary interventions are identified, they are not integrated into the NbS.

Are synergies actively sought across different sectors, based on the specific context and needs of the intervention?*

Synergies across sectors are thoroughly investigated at relevant points throughout the intervention time scale.

Synergies across some sectors are investigated and sought.

Synergies across some sectors are broadly identified, but knowledge gaps persist.

Synergies across sectors are not identified.

2.3 | NbS incorporate risk identification and management

▼ read more

For the NbS to be viable, durable, and sustainable, an appropriate risk identification and management framework should be incorporated into the NbS design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation. A risk-based approach means the NbS is assessed to understand whether it might pose risks that could give rise to any negative social or environmental impacts and whether external risks, including those that originate beyond the immediate intervention site, may affect its performance and sustainability. Once risks are identified, documented, and understood, the appropriate risk response measures should be taken in accordance with the level of risk. Risk identification and management is a continuous process throughout the life of the NbS. It requires adequate monitoring exercise to detect new and changing risks and constantly evaluate the response measures used in dealing with them accordingly (Criteria 6 and 7).

Have risks been identified, documented and understood, considering local, traditional and Indigenous knowledge and scientific evidence?*

The possible risks of undesirable changes (including both those that may arise from the NbS intervention itself and those stemming from the external context) and their drivers are identified, taking into account scientific and local knowledge.

Most risks of undesirable changes and their drivers are identified, taking into account scientific and local knowledge.

Some possible risks are identified and taken into account in the NbS, but context-specific knowledge gaps persist.

Limited or no risks are identified.

Has a risk management plan been integrated into the NbS and is revisited throughout the intervention?*

A full risk management plan is integrated into the NbS and revisited throughout the intervention time scale.

The management of most of these risks is integrated into the NbS and revisited at least once during the intervention time scale.

A full risk management plan is lacking.

Where identified, the risks management of not integrated into the NbS.

This field is hidden when viewing the form

2 - Sum

3. NbS result in positive change in the state of biodiversity and enhanced ecosystem integrity, including connectivity

3.1 | The state of the ecosystems and the drivers of ecosystem degradation and biodiversity loss are identified, assessed and documented

▼ read more

To develop a solution based on nature, it is important to have a well-founded understanding of the state of the ecosystems concerned. A baseline assessment should be established as a benchmark against which progress and the performance of the NbS can be measured (Criterion 7). The baseline assessment should characterise the state of the concerned ecosystems, identify the drivers of biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation. The baseline assessment should make use of both local/traditional knowledge and scientific understanding when available (Criterion 5) and provide a foundation for the NbS monitoring plan (Indicator 3.3 and Criterion 7).

Is a baseline assessment of the status of relevant ecosystems as a reference for future monitoring in place, considering scientific and local/traditional knowledge?*

A comprehensive, updated assessment of the status of ecosystems at the appropriate spatial and temporal scales is in place, using direct field verification and/or local knowledge, including through indicators.

There is information available about the state of the ecosystems at the appropriate spatial and temporal scales, verified in general terms through field visits, with general inputs from local communities and traditional knowledge, where possible.

Partial information is used for assessing the status of the ecosystems at more general scales, with low use of scientific and local/traditional knowledge.

There is no information available about general conditions of the status of the ecosystems, nor on their drivers, at any relevant spatial or temporal scale.

Are the drivers of ecosystem degradation and biodiversity loss identified and assessed?*

The assessment includes complete information about the drivers of change and biodiversity loss from.

There is enough information on drivers of ecosystem degradation and biodiversity loss to understand the state of ecosystems.

The information on drivers of ecosystem degradation and biodiversity loss is partial and scattered.

There is no information available about general conditions of the status of the ecosystems, nor on their drivers, at any relevant spatial or temporal scale.

3.2 | Opportunities to enhance ecosystem integrity, including connectivity, are identified, assessed and documented

▼ read more

NbS provide an opportunity to enhance biodiversity conservation and ecosystem management efforts in ways that other types of interventions, such as engineering, will not be able to achieve. For example, NbS can enable greater ecosystem connectivity when implemented close to natural ecosystems that are managed explicitly for conservation outcomes. Or they can help re-introduce lost components of an existing ecosystem by deliberately choosing formerly existing species of vegetation when restoring. It is important to identify and assess any requirements and opportunities to enhance biodiversity and ecosystem integrity, including connectivity, through participatory process and based on the best available knowledge (both scientific and traditional/local knowledge) (Criterion 5).

Are the opportunities to enhance or recover biodiversity and ecosystem integrity, including connectivity (incl. even outside of the NbS implementation area) identified, assessed and documented?*

There is a detailed assessment of the opportunities to enhance or recover biodiversity and ecosystem integrity, including connectivity. This assessment is informed by scientific and local/traditional knowledge through participatory processes.

There is a general identification and assessment of potential actions to enhance or recover biodiversity and ecosystem integrity, including connectivity, where appropriate.

There is a limited information on potential actions to enhance or recover biodiversity and ecosystem integrity, including connectivity, where appropriate.

There is no identification of any actions to enhance or recover biodiversity and ecosystem integrity, including connectivity.

3.3 | Measurable biodiversity outcomes are identified, benchmarked, periodically assessed and reviewed according to evidence-based assessments

▼ read more

The NbS should integrate SMART outcomes for enhancing and/or recovering key biodiversity and ecosystem values (Indicator 1.3) that are based on a baseline assessment (Indicator 3.1) and respond to identified drivers and opportunities (Indicators 3.1 and 3.2). Based on the baseline assessment (Indicator 3.1), measurable indicators and associated targets for enhancing key biodiversity and ecosystem values are to be set to track progress (Criterion 7). For each NbS, the type of indicator and target may differ; for example, the indicator could be the percentage of ecosystem area restored or the return of a keystone species.

Do the SMART NbS biodiversity outcomes respond to enhancing and/or recovering key biodiversity and ecosystem values?*

The NbS biodiversity outcomes indicate the direction of desired change (increase, decrease, maintain), the magnitude of desired change (e.g., 80%) and the timeframe (e.g., within 5 years).

NbS outcomes related to biodiversity are in place. However, there are no specific details related to the magnitude of desired change (e.g., 80%) and the timeframe (e.g., within 5 years).

The NbS outcomes related to biodiversity lack specificity.

The NbS lacks outcomes related to biodiversity.

Are targets and measurable indicators in place and periodically assessed to track progress and assess the NbS performance?*

Specific and measurable indicators and targets related to these outcomes are in place and are regularly assessed and reviewed (Criterion 7), yielding enough information to indicate biodiversity or ecosystem recovery or enhancement.

There are biodiversity targets and indicators in place but not regularly addressed or not well connected to defined outcomes.

No measurable indicators and targets are in place and the monitoring system is not well implemented.

There is no monitoring system in place and no data about ecosystem or species recovery.

3.4 | Unintended consequences on nature arising from the NbS are periodically assessed and addressed

▼ read more

Ecosystems are complex with interdependent components and processes. There will always be a level of uncertainty in how they will react to specific interventions or other external changes. NbS should be designed and periodically monitored (Indicator 2.3 and Criterion 7) to minimise and mitigate any unintended impacts that might undermine the ecological foundations of the solution itself.

Is there a monitoring plan to specifically detect and assess unintended ecological impacts of the NbS on biodiversity, ecosystem integrity, and connectivity?*

Possible adverse impacts of NbS interventions on ecosystems, ecological process and species are identified, specific measurable indicators related to these impacts have been included in the monitoring plan, which is properly implemented.

Possible adverse impacts of NbS interventions on ecosystems, ecological process and species are identified but no specific measurable indicators are integrated in the monitoring plan

There is a general understanding of possible impacts of NbS interventions at ecosystem level, but links with the monitoring plan is not specific.

There is no identification of potential impacts of NbS interventions.

Are appropriate response mechanisms in place to address any unintended ecological impacts identified?*

Approach and actions to address adverse impacts are clearly in place.

Approach and actions to address adverse impacts are are not fully defined.

Plans to mitigate those impacts are in place are generally defined.

These impacts are not assessed nor addressed.

This field is hidden when viewing the form

3 - Sum

4. NbS are financially feasible and economically justified

4.1 | The distribution of financial and societal costs and benefits is understood and documented to ensure distributional equity

▼ read more

Identification and documentation of the main financial and social costs and benefits, including monetary and non-monetary elements, derived from the intervention are key components for assessing the financial feasibility and viability and economic justification of an NbS. Upfront and recurring costs are to be assessed against the anticipated longer-term benefits of the proposed intervention, while making explicit, testing and verifying all assumptions, ideally within a cost-benefit analysis (CBA) framework. Finally, it is important to understand who receives the benefits and who bears the costs of the intervention to allow for a fair and just allocation of benefits and costs across stakeholder groups (distributional justice) and the development of safeguards and associated corrective actions against any possible financial inequalities (Criterion 6).

Are all upfront and future financial and social costs and benefits identified, assessed and documented?*

The main direct and indirect financial and social costs and benefits have been established, verified with key informants and are fully documented.

Analysis of costs and benefits includes both financial and non-financial elements and a clear description of indirect costs and benefits, although some gaps in understanding are still evident.

Analysis of costs and benefits includes both financial and non-financial elements although significant gaps in understanding with respect to indirect costs and benefits.

Identification of costs and benefits is limited only to the immediate and direct financial transactions of the initiative.

Are stakeholders and rights-holders who bear the costs and those who benefit from the NbS identified?*

The distribution of the costs and benefits is well understood and those who bear the costs can be easily ascertained from those who benefit from the NbS.

There is a good understanding of how costs and benefits are distributed but limited verification with key informants.

There is a general understanding of how the major costs and benefits are distributed but it is not comprehensive and lacks verification.

Understanding of how costs and benefits are distributed is superficial and/or anecdotal

4.2 | NbS are economically and financially justifiable against alternative solutions

▼ read more

A key attribute of NbS is the ability to address societal challenges in a manner that is both economically viable and efficient. This means that, when possible, the cost-effectiveness of a candidate NbS should be tested against viable alternatives to help justify its selection. Firstly, it is important to understand whether alternative solutions to the candidate NbS exist. Alternative solutions may include a different NbS (for example, watershed catchment management rather than floodplain management), a different combination of conventional and NbS, or substitution of the NbS entirely with a more conventional approach such as engineered infrastructure. When comparing the candidate NbS to alternative solutions, the analysis should consider the range of costs and benefits associated with each option, including financial, environmental, and social dimensions. The assessment of the costs of alternative interventions in reaching the same outcome(s), ideally within a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) framework, should be based on the long-term and not only on short-term financial returns. If the candidate NbS proves less cost-effective than an alternative in purely financial terms, this should be weighed against the broader range of co-benefits it can provide, with a clear understanding that prevention of biodiversity loss at the source is preferred overcompensating its effects elsewhere (offsetting).

Are available and feasible alternative solutions (that could deliver similar outcomes) identified and assessed through a cost-effectiveness analysis or comparable approach?*

The effectiveness and affordability of the intervention against the next best alternative(s) are fully economically justified, understood and documented.

The effectiveness and affordability of the intervention can be broadly justified although gaps in the analysis, particularly with respect to a comprehensive understanding of the alternate’s cost, benefits and risks, persists.

Viable alternate solutions have been identified and their pros and cons have been documented but only limited and basic economic analysis has been conducted.

There has been no meaningful review of the proposed intervention’s cost effectiveness against other viable alternatives

4.3 | Financial mechanisms are identified and secured to ensure NbS long-term viability

▼ read more

To unlock their potential in delivering multiple benefits to people and nature, NbS need to be financially feasible and viable over their lifetime. Investing heavily in upfront costs without considering the longer-term financial viability (including maintenance of infrastructure and the development of an exit strategy) can negatively impact the intervention's sustainability over time. Resourcing packages need to be developed and negotiated, integrating a range of financial mechanisms such as public-sector grants, incentives and low interest loans, private-sector loans and equity, blended public-private partnerships as well as philanthropic and voluntary contributions or combinations of the above, reflecting an equitable distribution of both the risks and returns. While securing its financial viability over time, NbS should inform and encourage the establishment of enabling conditions for their financial viability and upscaling (Criterion 8).

Were financial and other resourcing options identified, secured and sustained over lifetime of the intervention?*

A comprehensive review of financial and other resources mechanisms to sustain the NbS over its lifetime is completed.

An adequate review of financial and other resources mechanisms to sustain the NbS over its lifetime is completed.

A review of financial and other resourcing mechanisms to sustain the NbS over its lifetime is completed, although more analysis is required to properly assess their feasibility.

There is no clear understanding (or guarantee) of even the main long-term funding source beyond that required to cover the costs of immediate start-up or piloting phase.

Does this resourcing package reflect an equitable distribution of both the risks and returns?*

A full resourcing package is secured, including provision for future revenue streams, ensuring distributional equity.

A resourcing package, beyond that required to cover the costs of immediate start-up or piloting phase, is assembled and negotiated, but not yet secured.

A resourcing package, beyond that required to cover the costs of immediate start-up or piloting phase, is under development, but not yet negotiated and secured.

There has been no analysis of potential future revenue streams and no preliminary analysis of complementary resourcing options.

This field is hidden when viewing the form

4 - Sum

5. NbS are based on inclusive, transparent and empowering governance processes

5.1 | Stakeholders, rights-holders and Indigenous Peoples who are directly and indirectly affected by the NbS have been identified and are invited to fully and effectively participate in all processes

▼ read more

Stakeholder mapping and analysis identifies those who may be directly and indirectly, positively or negatively, impacted by the NbS. Rights, uses and responsibilities of stakeholders, rights-holders, Indigenous Peoples, local communities, and vulnerable groups in relation to the NbS should be assessed and documented. This allows the intervention to afford opportunities to impacted parties to engage with and fully and effectively participate in the design and implementation of the NbS, advocate clearly to uphold their rights and interests, and where necessary, to prevent further marginalisation. This is particularly important when dealing with Indigenous Peoples: their rights to Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) should be upheld and respected.

Have the directly and indirectly affected stakeholders and rights-holders been identified and documented, as well as their rights, uses, and responsibilities?*

Stakeholders and rights-holders, including Indigenous Peoples and vulnerable groups, who are directly and indirectly affected by the NbS, are identified and documented.

Stakeholders and rights-holders, including Indigenous Peoples and vulnerable groups, who are directly and indirectly affected by the NbS, are identified and mapped.

Some of the stakeholders and rights-holders, including Indigenous Peoples and vulnerable groups, who may be directly or indirectly affected by the NbS are identified.

No stakeholder analysis has been conducted to identify who may be directly and indirectly affected by the NbS.

Have affected stakeholders been given opportunities to fully and effectively participate in the design and implementation of the NbS, including respecting the Free, Prior and Informed Consent rights of Indigenous Peoples?*

Opportunities are provided for them to fully and effectively participate and to be actively involved/engaged in all aspects and processes of the NbS.

Most stakeholders and rights-holders are involved in the processes of the intervention although some gaps remain.

Of those identified, some have been engaged in the processes of the NbS.

There is not stakeholders’ participation in the design and implementation of the NbS.

5.2 | A defined and fully agreed upon grievance and conflict resolution mechanism is available, accessible and implemented

▼ read more

Grievance and conflict resolution mechanisms can include formal, legal or informal non-legal complaint systems that operate according to a clear set of procedures, roles and rules for receiving complaints and providing a remedy. Effective grievance and conflict resolution mechanisms are characterised by their acceptance and legitimacy among impacted stakeholders, rights-holders, Indigenous Peoples, local communities and vulnerable groups, as well as their transparency, accessibility and adherence to rights-based approaches. They should operate in a predictable and equitable manner and be based on engagement and dialogue. The mechanisms should be culturally appropriate considering indigenous and local languages and regularly reviewed and adapted (Criterion 7).

Is there a grievance and conflict resolution mechanism in place that is transparent, accessible, and respectful of rights?

A grievance and conflict resolution mechanism is developed in full consultation with affected stakeholders and rights-holders, including Indigenous Peoples and vulnerable groups. The mechanism is accessible, equitable, transparent, and rights-compatible.

A grievance and conflict resolution mechanism is developed with some consultation with affected stakeholders and rights-holders, including Indigenous Peoples and vulnerable groups. It is generally transparent, accessible and rights-compatible.

A grievance and conflict resolution mechanism is developed with limited input from some affected stakeholders and rights-holders. The mechanism is not fully accessible, accessible, and rights-compatible

A grievance and conflict resolution mechanism has not been or is only partially developed.

Other

Is the mechanism culturally appropriate, accepted by affected stakeholders, and regularly reviewed and adapted as needed?*

The mechanism is legitimate and adaptively managed.

The mechanism is generally legitimate, and with some adaptation over time.

The mechanism is not fully legitimate and with limited adaptation over time.

The mechanism has low accessibility and legitimacy.

5.3 | NbS are based on inclusive participation, mutual respect and equality, regardless of gender, age, ethnicity or social status.

▼ read more

For governance arrangements to function effectively, the enabling conditions should be guaranteed and affected stakeholders, rights-holders, Indigenous Peoples, local communities and vulnerable groups need to be equipped with the right information at the right time, in a language that they understand, and their inputs need to be meaningfully addressed. In doing so, a conscious effort is required to ensure that Indigenous Peoples, local communities and vulnerable groups are actively brought into the process in a manner that upholds their dignity and encourages their full and effective participation. This is particularly the case when an NbS intervention operates or impacts on the lands, waters and territories of Indigenous Peoples, where their right to self-determine interventions and outcomes should follow established Indigenous Peoples Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) rights and protocols.

Are affected stakeholders, regardless of gender, age, ethnicity or social status, provided with timely, understandable information and opportunities for meaningful input throughout the NbS intervention, while considering the different levels of participation?*

Participation of affected stakeholders and rights-holders, including Indigenous Peoples, local communities, and vulnerable groups, is guaranteed based on mutual respect and equality, regardless of gender, age, ethnicity or social status throughout the intervention timescale.

High level participation is achieved from most of the identified stakeholders and rights-holders, including Indigenous Peoples, local communities, and vulnerable groups. Processes are in place to ensure this is upheld throughout the intervention, although gaps persist with some stakeholders.

Information giving and consultation are provided early in the NbS process with some of the identified affected stakeholders and rights-holders, including Indigenous Peoples, local communities, and vulnerable groups. No processes in place to ensure this persists throughout the intervention.

No consultation and participation based on mutual respect and equality, regardless of gender, age, ethnicity or social status, are ensured throughout the intervention timescale

Where NbS interventions impact Indigenous lands, waters, or territories, are Free, Prior and Informed Consent rights and protocols fully respected and followed?

If Indigenous Peoples are potentially impacted, either directly or indirectly, by the intervention, FPIC is obtained and processes are in place to ensure this is upheld throughout the NbS timescale.

If Indigenous Peoples are potentially impacted, either directly or indirectly, by the intervention, FPIC is obtained, but currently cannot be substantiated and there are no processes in place to ensure this is upheld.

If Indigenous Peoples are potentially impacted, either directly or indirectly, by the intervention, no FPIC is obtained and no processes are in place to ensure this might be obtained and upheld.

If Indigenous Peoples are potentially impacted, either directly or indirectly, by the intervention, FPIC has not been obtained and processes have not been established to ensure this is upheld.

5.4 | Decision-making processes document and respond to the rights and interests of affected stakeholders, rights-holders, Indigenous Peoples and local communities

▼ read more

It is important that transparent and accessible documentation records key steps in NbS decision-making procedures. This helps enhance accountability and provides a strong basis for recourse in the case of any disputes or disagreements. Specific attention should be paid to noting which stakeholders and rights-holders, Indigenous Peoples, local communities and vulnerable groups, were involved in decision-making and the role they played. This is particularly important where persistent or structural injustice exists so that processes can be adapted to actively encourage full and effective participation of those most affected by inequity.

Are NbS decision-making processes transparent, documented and accessible*

Decision-making processes are documented and this documentation is transparent, available and accessible.

Decision-making processes are generally transparent, available and accessible.

Decision-making processes are documented, but gaps remain and/or there is a lack of transparency or accessibility.

Decision making processes are not well documented and accessible.

Do decision-making processes respond to the rights, roles and interests of affected stakeholders to ensure their full and effective participation through inclusive mechanisms, especially those most affected by structural injustice?*

Decision-making processes take into account and respond to the rights and interests of affected stakeholders and rights-holders. Specific attention is paid to ensure full and effective participation of Indigenous Peoples, local communities and vulnerable groups, particularly those subject to extreme inequity.

Decision-making processes take into account and respond to the rights and interests of affected stakeholders and rights-holders, although gaps persist with some stakeholders.

There is no clear plan to take into account and respond to rights and interests of affected stakeholders and rights-holders.

They do not take into account rights and interests of affected stakeholders and rights-holders.

5.5 | Where the scale of the NbS extends beyond jurisdictional boundaries, mechanisms are established to enable joint decision making among stakeholders and rights-holders in the affected jurisdictions.

▼ read more

Ecosystems do not follow political and administrative borders. Where the scale of the NbS extends beyond jurisdictional boundaries, mechanisms should be established to enable joint decision-making among stakeholders and rights-holders in those jurisdictions affected by the NbS to help ensure coherency and consistency of approach and desired outcomes.

Where the NbS intervention spans multiple jurisdictions, are there formal or informal mechanisms in place to enable joint decision-making among all affected stakeholders and rights-holders?

Whether and where the NbS intervention area extends beyond jurisdictional boundaries, transboundary cooperation's agreements are created between affected stakeholders and rights-holders in all jurisdictions, enabling joint decision-making is enabled.

There is a general understanding whether and where the NbS intervention area extends beyond jurisdictional boundaries and some transboundary cooperation's agreements are created between affected stakeholders and rights-holders in jurisdictions although gaps persist.

There is a limited identification of whether and where NbS intervention area extends beyond jurisdictional boundaries. There is a lack of transboundary cooperation agreements.

There is no understanding of whether or where NbS intervention area extends beyond jurisdictional boundaries. There is a lack of transboundary cooperation agreements.

(optional)

This field is hidden when viewing the form

5 - Sum

6. NbS seek to equitably reconcile the achievement of their primary goal(s) with any intended and unintended impacts on the continued provision of multiple benefits.

6.1 | Safeguards and associated corrective actions are established through a transparent, inclusive and participatory process to address the intended and unintended negative social or environmental impacts of the NbS

▼ read more

Safeguards are designed as risk response measures to be applied to interventions that may intentionally or unintentionally generate negative social or environmental impacts. Where risk associated to the NbS has been identified (Indicator 2.3 and Indicator 4.1), safeguards should be developed through transparent and inclusive consultations with affected stakeholders and rights-holders to anticipate and avoid or mitigate adverse consequences of the interventions. Safeguards may be put in place for biodiversity (e.g. setting aside a certain area for protection or limiting the timing of fishing) and for people (e.g. procedural – grievance mechanisms (Criterion 5), consultation obligations, right to appeal or substantive – contracts, legal and regulatory provisions). In case of unavoidable adverse consequences of interventions, corrective actions, including compensation (not only financial compensation), should be established through transparent and inclusive consultations with affected stakeholders and rights-holders.

Have appropriate safeguards and corrective actions been developed to address identified risks, while considering affected stakeholders and rights-holders?*

Yes. The risks associated to the NbS and their distribution across stakeholders and rights-holders are understood and used to inform safeguards.

The risks associated to the NbS and their distribution across stakeholders and rights-holders are understood and used to inform safeguards, although there are some gaps.

The risks associated to the NbS and their distribution across stakeholders and rights-holders are not fully understood and are not used to inform safeguards and associated corrective actions.

No safeguards and associated corrective actions are in place.

Is the process of decision-making regarding safeguards and corrective measures transparent, inclusive and participatory?*

Safeguards and corrective actions are established through a transparent, inclusive and participatory process and disclosed to affected stakeholders and rights-holders, including Indigenous Peoples, local communities, and vulnerable groups.

Some safeguards and corrective actions are established through a transparent, inclusive and participatory process.

The process of decision-making regarding safeguards and corrective measures is not transparent, inclusive and participatory.

No safeguards and associated corrective actions are in place.

6.2 | Safeguards and corrective actions are documented, available, accessible to affected stakeholders and rights-holders, and implemented

▼ read more

The legal and customary rights to access, use and control management over land and natural resources, particularly of vulnerable and marginalised groups, needs to be respected and upheld. Rights, use and responsibilities of stakeholder groups in relation to the NbS should be analysed and assessed, using appropriate tools and by building upon the outcomes of stakeholder analysis or mapping (5.3). This is particularly important when dealing with Indigenous communities, where Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) must be used (5.2).

Have the established safeguards and corrective actions been disclosed with methods appropriate for the affected stakeholders and rights-holders?*

The established safeguards and corrective actions are properly documented, available, accessible and disclosed to affected stakeholders and rights-holders.

Some safeguards and corrective actions are documented, available, accessible and disclosed to affected stakeholders and rights-holders.

Some safeguards and corrective actions are documented, but are not available, accessible and disclosed to affected stakeholders and rights-holders.

Safeguards and associated corrective actions are not disclosed, neither integrated in the NbS.

Are the established safeguards and corrective actions integrated in the NbS and implemented and monitored?*

They are fully integrated in the NbS, implemented and respected.

They are integrated in the NbS, implemented and respected, though some knowledge gaps persist in some areas or parts of the NbS.

The established safeguards and corrective actions are integrated in the NbS, but not implemented nor regularly monitored and reviewed.

Safeguards and associated corrective actions are not disclosed, neither integrated in the NbS.

6.3 | Safeguards and corrective actions are periodically reviewed to ensure that they have been fully implemented, proactively address conflicts and remain relevant

▼ read more

Safeguards and corrective actions need to adapt to changing circumstances, including when new activities trigger additional risks. Periodic reviews are necessary to ensure safeguards and associated corrective actions remain relevant. The periodic review should be conducted through transparent and inclusive consultations with affected stakeholders and rights-holders, and any changes need to be documented, available, accessible and disclosed to affected stakeholders and rights-holders (Criterion 7).

Are safeguards and associated corrective measures regularly reviewed and updated to reflect new risks, stakeholders needs, or changes in activities to avoid long-term harm?*

Safeguards and associated corrective measures are periodically reviewed and any change documented, available, accessible, disclosed to affected stakeholders and rights-holders, and respected, throughout the intervention time scale.

Established safeguards and associated corrective measures are occasionally reviewed, with documentation provided to affected stakeholders and rights-holders.

Established safeguards and associated corrective measures are sporadically reviewed, with no documentation provided to affected stakeholders and rights-holders.

Safeguards and associated corrective actions are not reviewed nor updated.

This field is hidden when viewing the form

6 - Sum

7. NbS are managed adaptively, based on evidence

7.1 | Assumptions on how desired NbS outcomes are achieved under dynamic social, economic and ecological conditions are defined and made explicit

▼ read more

The NbS outcomes to address the priority societal challenges and biodiversity outcomes (as defined in Indicators 1.3 and 3.3) - and the actions to be taken to achieve them - should be informed by the prevailing economic, social and ecological conditions and supported by the best available scientific evidence and Indigenous, traditional and local knowledge. Clear assumptions should also be made to whether and how the prevailing conditions are expected to change and impact the delivery of the desired NbS outcomes. Therefore, the integrated systems perspective should be applied (Indicator 2.1).

Are explicit assumptions defined and made about how the NbS intervention is expected to achieve its intended outcomes, given prevailing economic, social and ecological conditions, considering best available scientific and Indigenous, local and traditional knowledge?*

Explicit assumptions are made about how the NbS intervention is expected to achieve its intended outcomes, given prevailing economic, social and ecological conditions.

General assumptions are made about how the NbS intervention is expected to achieve its intended outcomes, given prevailing economic, social and ecological conditions, but gaps remain.

The assumptions on whether and how the prevailing economic, social and ecological conditions are expected to change and impact the delivery of the desired NbS outcomes are weak.

No assumptions are made on whether and how the prevailing economic, social and ecological conditions are expected to change and impact the delivery of the desired NbS outcomes.

Are the potential changes on economic social or ecological conditions considered to best address NbS outcomes, including the critical limits beyond which those outcomes are compromised?*

Potential changes on how economic, social and ecological conditions are expected to change and impact the delivery of the stated NbS outcomes are made explicit.

Potential changes on how economic, social and ecological conditions are expected to change are generally identified.

The potential changes are not well understood and considered in the adaptative process.

No assumptions are made on whether and how the prevailing economic, social and ecological conditions are expected to change and impact the delivery of the desired NbS outcomes.

7.2 | The validity of the assumptions is periodically tested through monitoring and evaluation as part of an ongoing learning process

▼ read more

In adaptive management, a feedback loop is a crucial iterative learning process where monitoring data is used to evaluate and adjust management strategies, leading to continuous improvement and learning. A monitoring and evaluation (M&E) plan is a key requirement to understand whether NbS effectively deliver the intended outcomes and whether any changes in the assumptions require a change in the NbS actions. The M&E should be conducted throughout the lifetime of the intervention to ensure long-term ecological and social impacts are assessed and inform not only the NbS management but also the establishment of the enabling conditions for NbS mainstreaming and scaling (Criterion 8). Where NbS have synergies with other complementary interventions (Indicator 2.2) and safeguards and relevant corrective actions (Indicator 6.1), these should be included in the M&E plan. Observed and sustained changes in the stated assumptions (Indicator 7.1) should trigger an adaptive management response (7.3).

Is a monitoring and evaluation (M&E) plan in place to assess the effectiveness of the NbS intervention over its lifetime, while evaluating synergies with complimentary interventions, and considering safeguards and assumptions on the prevailing conditions?*

A M&E plan is in place and implemented at regular intervals throughout the intervention lifetime, and includes references to synergies with other complementary interventions, safeguards and assumptions.

A M&E plan is in place to be implemented throughout the intervention lifetime albeit not at a regular basis, and includes general references to synergies with other complementary interventions safeguards and assumptions.

A M&E plan is in place to be implemented throughout the intervention lifetime albeit not at a regular basis, and it does not include references to synergies with other complementary interventions safeguards and assumptions.

Incomplete or no M&E plan is in place and implemented.

Does the M&E plan allow for a continuous learning process?*

The M&E plan allows for extracting lessons learnt which are documented and accessible.

General lessons learnt are documented, but not well structured.

The M&E plan is not fit for extracting lessons learnt.

Incomplete or no M&E plan is in place and implemented.

7.3 | Necessary changes to the management of the NbS are defined and implemented through an inclusive and participatory approach

▼ read more

Indicators 7.1 and 7.2 provide the framework for iterative learning that enables adaptive management to be applied throughout the intervention lifetime. This adaptive management approach may involve implementing corrective actions ensuring that NbS objectives remain relevant. Any changes to the NbS should be implemented through inclusive and participatory approach (Indicator 5.3). The learning framework should be institutionalised within local or partner institutions to strengthen long-term ownership and ensure continuity beyond the project's duration.

Do the M&E plan and learning framework enable corrective actions on the NbS over time?*

The M&E plan a learning framework properly informs the needed corrective actions throughout the intervention lifetime.

The M&E plan a learning framework properly informs the needed corrective actions throughout the intervention lifetime, albeit information gaps persist in some areas.

The M&E plan a learning framework are incomplete and lacks clarity on how they inform the corrective actions.

No corrective actions are in place, or they lack connection with the M&E plan and learning framework.

Are the required corrective actions implemented through an inclusive and participatory approach?*

The corrective actions are implemented through an inclusive and participatory approach.

The corrective actions are generally implemented through an inclusive and participatory approach.

The corrective actions are implemented through limited participation.

No corrective actions are in place, or they lack connection with the M&E plan and learning framework.

This field is hidden when viewing the form

7 - Sum

8. NbS contribute to the enhancement of the enabling conditions for their implementation, sustainability and mainstreaming

8.1 | Lessons learnt from NbS design and implementation, including barriers and enabling conditions, are captured and documented

▼ read more

Lessons learnt from NbS design and implementation, including insights into barriers and enabling conditions, should be systematically captured and documented. This knowledge supports adaptive management, fosters collective learning and helps inform the replication and scaling of successful interventions (Indicator 8.2).

Are lessons learnt from the NbS design and implementation, particularly regarding barriers faced and enabling conditions, being systematically captured and documented and shared with any interested stakeholder?*

NbS lessons learnt are systematically captured, documented, and made available in an accessible and appropriate format to support internal and collective learning.

Lessons learnt are captured and documented, and the format is generally appropriate for interested stakeholders.

Provisions are made to capture lessons learnt. However, there are barriers to accessibility (time frame, language, visibility, etc.) whether on demand or freely available.

Lessons learnt are not captured and/or shared.

8.2 | NbS inform and enhance the policy, finance and regulatory frameworks enabling their mainstreaming

▼ read more

The implementation of NbS is subject to a range of pre-existing policies, laws and sectoral regulations, some of which may not be consistent or mutually reinforcing. In some situations, inconsistent policies and regulations may limit the effective rollout of NBS or, worse, actually contribute to the loss of important ecosystem functions over time. In such situations, it is important to a) be aware of policy, regulatory and legal limitations and b) work with local and/or national decision makers as well as other key stakeholders, to highlight such obstacles and identify effective responses or other enabling solutions.

Are lessons learnt used to inform and improve the enabling conditions for scaling up and/or replicating NbS?*

The enabling conditions are well identified and lessons learnt are used to reinforce them.

The enabling conditions are generally identified and lessons learnt are used to reinforce them.

Lessons learnt are not properly used to inform how to improve the enabling conditions.

Enhancement of enabling conditions are not tackled.

Are these lessons integrated into a communication strategy aiming to shift how institutions, economies, or communities support NbS over the long term?*

A communication strategy is in place allowing for active external dissemination of lessons learnt, including provisions on how to inform and trigger transformational change at policy, regulatory, economic and social level.

A knowledge management and communication strategy is in place. However, the strategy only marginally clarifies how lessons learnt are used to trigger transformational change at policy, regulatory, economic and social level.

An incomplete communication strategy is in place with gaps on how to trigger transformational changes.

There is no communication strategy allowing addressing transformational changes.

8.3 | NbS contribute to relevant jurisdictional environmental, economic, and social targets and frameworks

▼ read more

NbS can make significant contributions to economic, social and environmental targets and frameworks and help achieve local, national, regional and/or global commitments, such as on climate change, human rights, human development and biodiversity. Making these linkages explicit, documenting and communicating them, helps reinforce the profile and role of NbS, secure broad-based and durable political commitment as well as societal and financial support, thereby enhancing the long-term sustainability of the intervention.

Is the contribution of the intervention to broader environmental, social or economic objectives being identified and made explicit, at local, sub-national, national or international frameworks or targets?*

Relevant local, subnational, national or international frameworks or targets are well identified.

Relevant local, subnational, national or international frameworks or targets are generally identified.

Some local, subnational, national or international frameworks or targets are identified, but gaps remain.

No local, subnational, national or international frameworks or targets are identified.

Does this help position the NbS within broader territorial or institutional agendas, and facilitate its potential replication or scaling in other contexts?*

The contribution of the NbS to these goals, targets and frameworks is regularly reported to facilitate mainstreaming and upscaling of the NbS intervention.

The potential contribution of the NbS to these goals, targets and frameworks is understood and occasionally reported in relevant platforms.

The potential contribution of the NbS to these goals, targets and frameworks is only partially identified and not reported in relevant platforms.

The potential contribution of the NbS to these goals, targets and frameworks is not identified, nor reported in relevant platforms.

This field is hidden when viewing the form

8 - Sum

This field is hidden when viewing the form

All

Preview

Here you have the opportunity to review your entries again. You can return to the entry form by clicking on the “Previous” button.

▼ see the preview▼

{all_fields:nohidden}